A.K Goswami, J.

Heard Mr.J.Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U B Sarma, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 to 5. None appears for the Respondent No.6.

2. By this application, the petitioner calls into question the legality and validity of the order dated 27.8.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division) No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati in T.S.No.162/2003, whereby prayer for adjournment of cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 was rejected, thus closing their cross-examination.

3. The petitioner, as plaintiff, filed a suit for damages and compensation for defamation and permanent injunction against the present respondents no.1 to 5, who were defendants no. 1 to 5 in the suit. The suit was registered as T.S.No.162 of 2003.

4. By an order dated 8.3.2004, while rejecting the application of the defendants no.1 to 5 for granting time to file written statement, the learned trial court directed that the suit would proceed ex-parte against them and fixed 3.4.2004 for evidence of witnesses of the plaintiff on affidavit at a time. It appears that plaintiff prayed for time on 3.4.2004, 14.5.2004 and 25.6.2004 for filing the evidence on affidavit of his witnesses. By the order dated 25.6.2004, the learned trial court had again fixed 8.7.2004 for filing evidence of the witnesses of the plaintiff.

5. On 8.7.2004, the plaintiff filed the evidence on affidavit of three witnesses including the plaintiff himself as PW1. PW2, at the relevant point of time, was holding the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Northern Range and PW3 was a retired Additional Chief Engineer (PWD). The plaintiff himself was holding the post of Director General of Police, Assam at the time of filing the evidence on affidavit. The learned trial Court fixed 27.8.2004 for cross-examination of the witnesses of the plaintiff. On 27.8.2004, two petitions came to be filed by the plaintiff. By petition no. 2386/04, the plaintiff prayed for adjournment of his cross-examination. By petition no.2394/04, the plaintiff prayed for adjournment of cross-examination of PW-2. The PW3, though, was present.

6. As noted earlier, the learned trial Court rejected the said petitions and closed the cross-examination of PW1 and 2 with the observation that the consequence and effect of closure of their cross-examination on the evidence on affidavit would be considered in due course. The order dated 27.8.2004 shows that though PW3 was partly cross-examined, subsequently, on the request of the learned counsel for the defendants, cross-examination was also deferred to the next date fixed.

7. Mr. J Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court totally mis-directed itself in rejecting the petitions filed by the plaintiff on the mis-conceived notion that as 3 adjournments had already been granted to the plaintiff, no further adjournment could be granted to the plaintiff irrespective of the cause shown for adjournment. It is submitted by him that if circumstances are beyond the control of the party, it is always permissible for the trial Court to grant adjournment in spite of party already availing three adjournments earlier. It is submitted by him that petitioner had shown valid and sufficient cause for grant of adjournment and such prayer for adjournment was necessitated by reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. The learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamilnadu v. Union of India, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3353.

8. Mr. U B Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 5, on the other hand, submits that the plaintiff was needlessly delaying the proceeding. In view of the provisions contained in Order 17, Rule 1 CPC, the learned trial Court rightly passed the impugned order and no interference with the said order is called for, he submits.

9. In the petition filed praying for grant of adjournment in respect of PW1, it was stated that the plaintiff had to